in it, it is "a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell."

But, Sir, I have one consideration more that I will urge why sentence
ought not to be pronounced against me. This law, which I think I have
proved outrageous to the rights of man, is so obviously at variance
with the law of that God who commands me to love Him with all my soul,
mind, might and strength, and my neighbor as myself, and the Redeemer
who took upon him my nature and the nature of poor Jim Gray has been
so particular in telling me who my neighbor is, that the path of duty
is plain to me. This law so plainly tramples upon the divine law, that
it cannot be binding upon any human being under any circumstances to
obey it. The law that bids me do to other men as I would have other
men do to me, is too plain, too simple to be misunderstood. But, Sir,
I am not now left to the general law of love in searching for my duty
in this particular case. Permit me to refer your Honor to the oldest
law-book in existence. Though it may not be in use in this Court, yet
I think it better authority than Blackstone or any law-book that ever
was written. It is the book of books. In that book, I find some
special enactments given to the Hebrew commonwealth, that leave me in
no doubt as to my duty in reference to this law. "He that stealeth a
man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely
be put to death." Again: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the
servant that has escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell
with thee, even among you, in that place he shall choose in one of thy
gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him." These
plain statutes, with many more that I might give, leave me in no doubt
as to the mind of the unchanging Jehovah, in reference to man-stealing
and slave-hunting. Sir, the whole system of slavery originated in
man-stealing, and is perpetuated by fraud and violence and plunder.
Others may have their doubts as to their duty under this law; I, Sir,